A question of morals May 8, 2017

Yesterday, I intervened in a discussion relating to posting rates. I am here to join in, not judge people because it is not in my nature to do so. yet I stomped on a guy for what I now believe to be a realistic idea. There was a threat element to my hypothesis because factors change, so in some cases multi-posting is essential. There have been times I wished others would post more frequently because I was getting tired of seeing my own name. I think the turning point for me yesterday, was the fact that of all the multi-posters over the last few weeks (including myself), the counsellor for some reason drew the short straw. I am good at pattern recognition with numbers, my main skill for trying to track down quakes… the councillor posts on average every 10 to 14 days. My posts have averaged 1 per day since joining Quake Watch, I felt it should have been someone like me receiving “friendly advice”. I tried to be realistic with my comments, and what I envisioned could happen in the future, may have already started.

I would like to apologise to Richard for coming down hard on him, everybody has a right to voice their opinion. But just as there is a standard for prediction protocols, there are discretionary ways to give advice to fellow predictors… I didn’t see discretion!. I’m afraid I am a little old fashioned in my approach, a habit from my Uni days I guess… politeness always gets respect from fellow peers.

In some respects, Richard’s argument on postings is correct. I am speaking in the chat room because the current material in this particular forum shows some of you (like myself) are here to try and accomplish some real science. I myself am not money orientated in this venture, though if my funny numbers come up with a chance to top up my pension… who knows ##. I was very sour on my comment about the trivialities of effort, in truth, effort is everything. There is an element of enjoyment at seeing a fellow predictor achieve a hit on a quake, especially when you seen the scientific material described here. It shows they have made the “effort” to procure a forecast, and deserve the reward of being recognised. However, as Richard pointed out, in the mist of 7.5’s and 8’s, genuine attempts are hard to keep track of. One solution would be to have two prediction forums, one for the contest and one for science. If quake Watch is serious about finding an answer to the earthquake problem, it will not achieve this by producing an army of VAN’s.

I have not made an introduction here, because I do not wish to dwell on sad history. But for the present, I like trying to achieve the goals I set for myself (currently, earthquake prediction again!) I have an interest in astronomy, especially solar and lunar topics (for obvious reasons). And I am generally a humorous kind of fellow, though my “across the pond” attempts probably need working on… watching a few more episodes of the “Simpson’s” might rectify that!

Again apologies to Richard, and I wish him luck with his future predictions.

I have been stung a few times in the past, so I hope my words here have not caused offence… next time, maybe we’ll talk numbers!

Thank you

Lester